I believe that Emma was aware of Joseph’s marriages she had been convinced that they were for eternity only and that the marriages were platonic.

Unfortunately for your position, there is evidence to argue against this.

“[Emma] was well aware that [Joseph] associated with them as wives… This is proven by the fact that [Emma] herself, on several occasions, kept guard at the door to prevent disinterested persons from intruding, when these ladies were in the house.” - Linda Newell and Valeen Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1984), 144-145.

“I cannot believe after enduring all this for his sake, that Emma Smith ever denied seeing the revelation on celestial marriage after receiving it in good faith and accepting it as a command from God, knowing as I do, that she taught it to Eliza and Emily Partridge, Maria and Sarah Lawrence, and urged them to accept it by being sealed to her husband. She treated them kindly and considerately and knew they were associated with him as his wives. She was then a happy woman, until the tempter came in human form, and she partook of the apostate spirit so rife in those days. She could not deny these facts without sinning against her husband, sinning against his wives, against the truth, and against her God!” - Lucy Walker Smith Kimball, cited in Joseph F[ielding] Smith, Jr., Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage: A Discussion (Independence, Missouri: Press of Zion’s Printing and Publishing Company, 1905), 61–62.

“Zina Huntington remembered a conversation between Elizabeth [Davis] and Emma [Smith] in which Elizabeth asked the prophet’s wife if she felt that Joseph was a prophet. Yes, Emma answered, but I wish to God I did not know it.” - Todd M. Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 261.

So, Emma had her own witness about Joseph’s calling. And, she knew that at least some of the wives were wives in every sense. There were times that angered her, but times it didn’t.

Helen Mar Kimball left writings in which she stated she, herself, that that “her time would be her own.” And that if she had known completely was was involved, she would have never married Joseph. She stated she was “tricked.” She also said it was pretty hard for a young girl to have the salvation of her family on her shoulders.

IIRC, this is from a second-person anti-Mormon account. Do you have a cite? I suspect this is relying on Catherine Lewis, Narrative of Some of the Proceedings of the Mormons (Lynn, MA: n.p., 1848), 19, which strikes me as dubious given what we have from Helen in the first person.

During the summer of 1843, Heber tried to explain plural marriage to Helen, who was then nearly fifteen. Of this experience she later wrote, “I remember how I felt, but which would be a difficult matter to describe–the various thoughts, fears and temptations that flashed through my mind when the principle was first introduced to me by my father . . . in the summer of 1843. . . .” 45 Helen was very disturbed and skeptical. “The next day, the Prophet called at our house, and I sat with my father and mother and heard him teach the principle and explain it more fully, and I believed it . . . .” - Stanley B. Kimball, “Heber C. Kimball and Family, the Nauvoo Years,” Brigham Young University Studies 15/4 (Summer 1975): 465; citing H. M. Whitney, Scenes and Incidents” 11(15 July 1882): 39.

Helen indicates that her decision to marry was willing, and she didn’t see the difficulties that would later come:

“This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward…in [my mother's] mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come as the sun was to rise and set; but it was all hidden from me.” - Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, Autobiography, 30 March 1881, LDS archives; cited in B. Carmon Hardy, Works of Abraham, 49.

I did not try to conceal the fact of its having been a trial, but confessed that it had been one of the severest of my life; but that it had also proven one of the greatest of blessings. I could truly say it had done the most towards making me a Saint and a free woman, in every sense of the word; and I knew many others who could say the same, and to whom it had proven one of the greatest boons–a “blessing in disguise.” – Helen Mar Kimball, Why We Practice Plural Marriage, 23-24 cited in Andrus, Doctrines of the Kingdom.

Helen remained a staunch defender of plural marriage.

[William Clayton spoke about plural marriage]…”his subject was polygamy, showing why it was so necessary, & the great loss of those that did not practice it; proving it by scripture, that what seemed to be theirs would be taken and given to another, that men with only one wife would be nothing but angels in the next world, it was very interesting; & I confess I understood things that night that I never did before, & saw not only the necessity but the beauty of polygamy our trials here look so small, when I look at the great glory that is in store for the few that will hold out faithfull to the end.”

- Helen Mar Kimball Whitney to Horace K. Whitney, 17 December 1869, Whitney Family Papers, Box 1, fd 1, ULA; cited in B. Carmon Hardy, Works of Abraham, 162.

She got quite irritated with those who would presume to interpret her experience for her:

“I have been a member of this Church for forty-nine years, and am one of the women who have been tried and tested, and the angels will bear witness of that to-day, I am a stronger advocate of ‘Mormonism’ and the celestial order of marriage, and rejoice more exceedingly in the goodness of God to me and my house, than ever before. I know that this holy order would prove a blessing to all who would receive and practice it in the way that He designed. I received this knowledge years ago, and it is not in the power of man to alter my belief, [50] and no one but myself is responsible for my actions. Whatever has appeared over my signature, has been written independently of any other person…

“Our pious Christian friends evidently ignore these facts, and are striving independently of scripture, reason or the dictates of humanity, to solve the so-called ‘Mormon problem.’…

“Could those who look down upon plural wives and cast a stigma upon them and their offspring realize the lamentable and degraded condition of many women in the world, veritable slaves who dare not express their feelings for fear of the lash of ‘public opinion,’ they might change their minds respecting ‘Mormon’ women, who are anything but dupes or slaves. The women who have come out to this meeting and the thousands whom they represent, could not be kept in subjection to an influence that would make them slaves instead of free women.” - Helen M. Whitney, in “Full Account of Proceedings at the Great Mass Meeting,held in the Theatre, Salt Lake City, Utah (6 March 1886),50-52, italics in original.

Helen doesn’t agree with your reading of her experiences, it would seem.

More than one plural wife was threatoned with eternal damnation if they refused plural marriage.

Leaving aside the issue of “threatening damnation,” those same wives were equally willing to tell Joseph to stuff it unless they got their own witness. Which they repeatedly reported that they had.

See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations

The issue, of course, is one of obedience–will you get revelation and obey the prophet? These women repeatedly witnessed that they did, and they would.

I’m wondering how the apologists get past the “virgin” portion of the revelation when the “powers that be” were marrying women who were already married and were living with their husbands.

The D&C tends to be written in a Biblical idiom. “Virgin” in that idiom does not necessarily mean “sexually inexperienced,” it can also mean “unmarried” or “young woman.” (See, for example, the famous Isaiah “a virgin shall conceive” passage, which doesn’t necessarily mean a _virgin_ in the Hebrew.) So, I would see it as meaning “woman unattached in celestial marriage.”

I know of no evidence for polyandrous sealings for any of the “powers that be” except Joseph. Do you? The polyandrous sealings didn’t seem to bother anyone, including the husbands and Emma.

One of the greatest problems with polygomy is that one has no right to be mad or unhappy if your husband courts and marrys another; that you are selfish; that you do not have the correct spirit if you object!

There is no question that plural marriage was a great challenge. And, like all great challenges, we often fall short of coping ideally.

Polygomy [sic] is completely against inherent feelings. The only way a person could handle such a situation is to stifle caring and love. Polygomy destroys one’s soul.

Given that polygyny is the most common marital arrangement in human history, this probably isn’t true.

You may mean that the only way you could handle this is to stifle caring and love. That may be true. It may be true for some others.

But, it is and was not true in all cases, as the participants bore witness. We ought not, I think, seek to define their experience by our reaction, but seek to understand their experience in their own terms. Sometimes that will be negative. But, it was not always.

Often, the trial and difficulty were prelude to something greater. For one example among many, see:

“In March, 1863, I was married to James P. Freeze, whom, I felt assured was a noble man, one that I could trust as the guardian of my life. I am the mother of eight children. We resided in Richmond six months after our marriage, when we came to Salt Lake City, where he has since followed the mercantile business…

” In the spring of 1871, my husband, a faithful man, desirous of keeping all the commandments of God, saw fit, with my full consent, to take to himself another of the daughters of Eve, a good and worthy girl, Jane Granter by name. It tried my spirit to its utmost endurance, but I always believed the principle to be true, and felt that it was time we obeyed that sacred order. The Lord knew my heart and desires, and was with me in my trial and assisted me to overcome the selfishness and jealousy of my nature. With his help, added to the great kindness of my husband, who has ever stood at the head of his family as a wise and just man, I soon obtained peace. While undergoing the severest trial to my feelings, I was inspired with the following lines which the Lord was not slow to answer:

” ‘Father, help me to do Thy will,
Command my troubled heart be still;
Cause my soul with peace to flow,
W hile I sojourn here below,
Help me still to realize
Thou’rt the giver of the prize
That Iwould win througn faithfulness.
Then, Father, O look down and bless
Thine erring child that cries to Thee
For help, amid life’s stormy sea.’

“My husband has since taken two other wives, and I praise the Lord that I had so far overcome, that instead of feeling it to be a trial, it was a source of joy and pride that we were counted worthy to have such noble girls enter our family. The two last were my Counselors in the Young Ladies’ Improvement Association of our Ward. I have loved the wives of my husband as I would have my own sisters, realizing that the power of the Holy Priesthood that has hound us together for time and eternity is stronger than kindred ties. Sophia lived with me nearly seven years; she died December, 1879, which was one of the greatest trials of my life. I could as willingly have parted with one of my own daughters. She left me a beautiful boy who seems as near to me as my own. I wish to bear testimony to my descendants, and to all who may read this sketch, that I know by the power of the Holy Ghost which bears testimony to my spirit, that the Patriarchal Order of Marriage is from God and was revealed for the exaltation and salvation of the human family, also that I have had peace, joy and satisfaction in living in that Order such as I had never known before; and have had many proofs that God will pour out His blessings upon those who keep His laws, seeking Him with full purpose of heart, for He will be sought after by His children. - - Augusta Joyce Crocheron (author and complier), Representative Women of Deseret, a book of biographical sketches to accompany the picture bearing the same title (Salt Lake City: J. C. Graham & Co., 1884). On-line transcript by W. David Samuelsen, at

So, neither the wife nor husband crushed love and affection. The woman bore witness of the blessing their arrangement was on her faith and interpersonal relationships.

These things are more complicated than slogans or sweeping generalizations can make them. That’s partly why it’s so fascinating.

Best,

Greg

I believe that Emma was aware of Joseph’s marriages she had been convinced that they were for eternity only and that the marriages were platonic.

Helen Mar Kimball left writings in which she stated she, herself, that that “her time would be her own.” And that if she had known completely was was involved, she would have never married Joseph. She stated she was “tricked.” She also said it was pretty hard for a young girl to have the salvation of her family on her shoulders.

More than one plural wife was threatoned with eternal damnation if they refused plural marriage.

I’m wondering how the apologists get past the “virgin” portion of the revelation when the “powers that be” were marrying women who were already married and were living with their husbands.

One of the greatest problems with polygomy is that one has no right to be mad or unhappy if your husband courts and marrys another; that you are selfish; that you do not have the correct spirit if you object!

Polygomy is completely against inherent feelings. The only way a person could handle such a situation is to stifle caring and love. Polygomy destroys one’s soul.

Mariah

The Fundemental Mormon’s may not be the same denomination as LDS. But they presented testimony of women that had a variety of bad experiences in such grop’s. This was done to say that women in 19th century Mormonism who had polygamist husband’s suffered the same. I sense they were trying to scare women on the evil’s of Mormonism. That’s why they put so many women in the film.

I do not see many people interested in persuing advanced matter’s of history. So it’s hard to prepare them for tough source’s or quote’s they have never seen. Reading book’s like Mormonism Shadow or Reality? was a real shock for me on the topic. I wasn’t prepared for the content of book’s like Mormon Enigma, or Mormon Polygamy A History. It took me a long time to work through the material so i could become innoculated to the content.

What is needed is advanced plural marriage apologetic. A watered down missionary apologetic won’t be a match for such book’s. I had one LDS book for missionary’s that said don’t even bring the topic up unless the investigator brought it up. I wonder how many person’s got baptized LDS, and never heard anything about polygamy as a result. It was year’s ago and i can’t recall the author, or book name.

I also see the problem that church library’s tend to not have tough stuff in them. And they tend to be smaller. Some folk’s also might feel they have to protect other’s so might remove them even if you donated them. But the content of library’s can educate the intellectual type’s.

The LDS leadership would have to do an education apologetic DVD on polygamy. Without them authorizing it’s use for missionaries, member’s, investigator’s it would be hard to educate million’s of typical LDS member’s. This is the only way i could see every LDS becoming innoculated.

I wish my denomination would do an education set of DVD’s. DVD’s, the internet is a great way to share belief’s. I think working with leader’s through proper channel’s is a good way to sell them on such idea’s.

I still occasionally hear people assert that Joseph Smith never had Plural wives, mostly out of ignorance I think. It is interesting that the info doesn’t get passed around more.

And within a few days of this period my sister accompanied me to Nauvoo, where at our sister Delcena’s, we soon met the Prophet with his brother Hyrum and Wm. Clayton, as his private secretary, who always accompanied him. Brother Hyrum at once took me in hand, apparently in fear I was not fully converted, and this was the manner of his talk to me: “Now Benjamin, you must not be afraid of this new doctrine, for it is all right. You know Brother Hyrum don’t get carried away by worldly things, and he fought this principle until the Lord showed him it was true. I know that Joseph was commanded to take more wives, and he waited until an angel with a drawn sword stood before him and declared that if he longer delayed fulfilling that command he would slay him.” This was the manner of Brother Hyrum’s teaching to me, which I then did not need, as I was fully converted.

Benjamin Johnson indicates he was already converted to the principle by the time he discussed things with Hyrum. After Johnson’s conversion story, he writes:

He had asked me to bring my sister to the city, which I soon did, where he saw her at my sister’s, the Widow Sherman, who had already been sealed to him by proxy. His brother, Hyrum, said to me, “Now, Brother Benjamin, you know that Brother Joseph would not sanction this if it was not from the Lord. The Lord revealed this to Brother Joseph long ago, and he put it off until the Angel of the Lord came to him with a drawn sword and told him that he would be slain if he did not go forth and fulfill the law.” He told my sister to have no fears, and he there and then sealed my sister, Almira, to the Prophet.

I think Jacob provides a number of reasons why polygamy wasn’t right for the Nephites. God’s marriage policies are designed to raise up a righteous branch of people. That is an agricultural metaphor that feeds right in to Jacob’s olive tree allegory. God doesn’t use the strategy at all times, somes times he adds dung, some times he burns unfruitful branches, some times he grafts in wild branches, and some times he transplants trees to isolated parts of the garden.

I see the Nephites non-practice of as a way producing a society that made clear breaks with some of Jerusalem’s excesses and stopped them from being totally assimilated into indigenous Meso-American culture. We see in Jacob’s sermon a decrying of Jerusalem’s wickedness, resistance against an elite wealthy class monopolizing wives and riches, some concern about the well-being of females (no doubt polygyny creates additional trials for women), a concern that taking many foreign wives of a different faith and race might corrupt the Nephites (the Solomon corollary) and the need for Nephites to be obedient to a living prophet relaying God’s message even when it trumps the permissiveness of a dead prophet like Moses.

So I see the command to practice polygamy relayed through Joseph Smith, even though it was the opposite policy of that employed by the Nephites, as serving the same basic purposes. It helped the early Mormons form their own ethnicity and helped isolate then from the corrupt, ambient society. However its time came to an end and the growth of a righteous seed became better served by grafting in wild branches or going through a phase were Mormons became better assimilated into the ambient society.

I myself see Deut. 17 as allowing a king to have some wive’s, some gold, some horses. Multiplying out of greed was what was forbidden not the king being a polygamist. Deut. 21 has rule’s for treating wive’s in such household’s. The Lord certainly tolerated it if not condoned some of it.

Jacob 2 can’t be read to conflict with that. With all the Old Testament polygamist’s i just don’t buy into the idea God never raised rightious seed to himself via any polygamists.

The real issue is not Jacob 2:30, but whether D.&C. 132 is such an true authorization. It was authorized under the law of Moses. So i don’t see Jacob 2:30 as forcing me to accept the revelation. I feel however that people should read such religious text’s of other faith’s for themselves and ask God.